90DayFinancier

Nothing says father figure and good husband like an overpriced boutique whiskey.

Upshot, we need to protect our FB/IG/T privacy. Don’t these filmmakers know that social media platforms are under no obligation to protect anyone’s privacy.

Funding begins with in congress, the president can ask but his job is to execute with the resources given.
 

Some of my posted opinions are court opinions.

The usual modus operandi is to derail the topic and then post a  meme because the topic challenges worldviews. In this case the meme is violent and nasty. Even "shrew like".

One week delay until pending cases are heard. That’s not even as long as some of your VJ time outs.

I don't think NATO's mandate is to support Ukraine's right to fight. The argument is if NATO even has a mandate any more, but if anything it is to support the defense of member nations. 
 
    Certainly Ukraine does have a right to fight and defend it's territory, and they probably need support to do that. The question is why the USA needs to be involved in that. It is not consistent with current policy. The current administration has always focused on moving away from interventionist policy. It's one of the reasons why hiring guys like Bolton made no sense in the first place.
 
  At any rate, Ukraine seems to be more interested in ties to Europe than the USA. They should focus on that.

Just a FYI for you but NC actually voted on a Voter ID Amendment last year. Even though it was heavily heavily pushed against by the Democrats it was pushed into law by 55% of the state. The General assembly then codified that and it was voted on and made into law despite the Governor's veto. 
 
It has provisions in there for elderly, low income, and actual mobile is centers. This was out into the bill to fight the so called voter suppression antics that the Left loves to throw out there.
 
After passage it was immediately sued in court by different  groups. It is now in the courts but the voter id law is still allowed to be implemented for 2020.

The usual modus operandi is to derail the topic and then post a  meme because the topic challenges worldviews. In this case the meme is violent and nasty. Even "shrew like".

Some of my posted opinions are court opinions.

Context is important. I am pretty sure he didn't say I was full of sunshine and unicorn farts, even if that is true. 
 
I could always report the post, but I won't.

You still haven't explained how Donald John Trump will win a third term. Queue the nonsense meme post..

Here are examples from Wikipedia of voter suppression efforts in the 2016 election
 
 
2016 presidential electionEdit
Further information: United States presidential election, 2016 The 2016 presidential election was the first in 50 years without all the protections of the original Voting Rights Act. Fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place, including swing states such as Virginia and Wisconsin.[69][70][71][72]
KansasEdit
Learn more   This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. In early 2016, a state judge struck down a law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship, in cases where the voter had used a national voter registration form. In May, a federal judge ordered the state of Kansas to begin registering approximately 18,000 voters whose registrations had been delayed because they had not shown proof of citizenship. Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach ordered that the voters be registered, but not for state and local elections. In July, a county judge struck down Kobach's order. Kobach has been repeatedly sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for allegedly trying to restrict voting rights in Kansas.[73][74]
North CarolinaEdit
In 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable.[75] In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns.[76][77] On May 15, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court ruling.[78]
North DakotaEdit
An ID law in North Dakota which would have disenfranchised large numbers of Native Americans was overturned in July 2016. The judge wrote, "The undisputed evidence before the Court reveals that voter fraud in North Dakota has been virtually non-existent."[74]
OhioEdit
Learn more   This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Since 1994, Ohio has had a policy of purging infrequent voters from the rolls. In April 2016, a lawsuit was filed, challenging this policy on the grounds that it violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)[79] and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.[80] In June, the federal district court ruled for the plaintiffs, and entered a preliminary injunction applicable only to the November 2016 election. The preliminary injunction was upheld in September by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Had it not been upheld, thousands of voters would have been purged from the rolls just a few weeks before the election.[79]
WisconsinEdit
In Wisconsin, a federal judge found that the state's restrictive voter ID law led to "real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities"; and, given that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in Wisconsin, found that the law was "a cure worse than the disease." In addition to imposing strict voter ID requirements, the law cut back on early voting, required people to live in a ward for at least 28 days before voting, and prohibited emailing absentee ballots to voters.[74] A study by Priorities USA, a progressive advocacy group, estimates that strict ID laws in Wisconsin led to a significant decrease in voter turnout in 2016, with a disproportionate effect on African-American and Democratic-leaning voters.[81][82]

You oppose the restoration of voting rights. On top of advocating the overthrow of the us constitution to keep your candidate in office. Good to know.

The VP must meet the same requirements as President to run for  VP. The two term limitation would disqualify a former President from running.

The VP must meet the same requirements as President to run for  VP. The two term limitation would disqualify a former President from running.

You oppose the restoration of voting rights. On top of advocating the overthrow of the us constitution to keep your candidate in office. Good to know.

Dude, chill out. I asked a question quite nicely, I think, and it wasn't meant with any malice. I asked if you had actual proof of your assertion, like links to articles or similar. I didn't come in raging and pointing fingers and collapsing on my fainting couch or whatever with the vapors. If you don't like my question, or me, or whatever you think I "stand for," that's fine.  We are all just people on the internet.

OMG dude.  I'm not saying I'm being victimized! 😂 I asked a question, and you haven't even really given a response that I could argue with you on. I'm not hurt at all. Really. Life is good, and this halfway decent cheapie sparkling wine from Whole Foods makes it feel pretty mellow. 

They say he did very well with the Russian voters.

Where is that Maven lady? Because nothing a rational adult says really resonates with this crowd. The need a super barrister

I read what he said. In the comments, I also read what the alleged complaint was. The waitress heard part of his conversation, hearing the words "school" and "shoot". I did not say he was guilty or innocent. From his own account, it sounds like he is innocent. That is often the case though. What I I am saying is that's why he ended up in this situation. As I said initially, the threat was alleged (which take my word for, is actually enough to get arrested). We are told the officer believed that threat rose to the level of a felony, and that his response was it he was misheard and out of context.  
 
   Not to digress, but none of this is hearsay. If someone hears someone say something and gives a direct account to the police, that is what they call direct evidence. Hearsay is when someone hears a second person make a claim about someone else's guilt and relays that information. What happened in this case is a person heard only part of a conversation.  
 
  

Ha, I don't know what the article was! It was a Sunday (London) Times magazine, that I remember. He told me had found it under the sofa (hideous beige) and was reading it because it was there, and he was bored (2005, no smartphone ). I was sitting alone on the sofa and I felt it edge forward a little at some point, which seemed weird, and when I looked over, there he was. I asked him if he usually read behind couches at parties, and he said no, he was hiding from his ex-girlfriend who didn't understand why he had broken up with her, and he had managed to wedge himself back there because she was unlikely to look there. (He was correct.) So I joined him and we shared some of the whisky from his flask while he told me gossip about everyone at the party. I thought he was fantastic immediately, but we didn't manage to get together for another 6 months (though we eventually broke up). I also met Voldemort-the-ex that night so it was rather an eventful evening!
 
His eyes are brown, since you did ask.
 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/06/support-just-one-republican-house-passes-historic-bill-restore-and-expand-voting
 
Just one Republican—Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania—joined a united House Democratic caucus on Friday to pass what rights groups hailed as "historic" legislation to restore and expand voter protections that were gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Lisa Gilbert, vice president of legislative affairs for Public Citizen, said passage of the Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4) is a "critical step" in combating Republican voter suppression efforts that have proliferated in the six years since the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
"Numerous state legislatures have undertaken targeted and deliberate steps to limit or impede the right to vote for communities of color, students, the elderly, and people with disabilities," said Gilbert. "Americans who are eligible to vote but are denied that right due to fabricated or illegal barriers are being deprived of the full privilege of our democracy."
 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/06/support-just-one-republican-house-passes-historic-bill-restore-and-expand-voting
 
Just one Republican—Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania—joined a united House Democratic caucus on Friday to pass what rights groups hailed as "historic" legislation to restore and expand voter protections that were gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Lisa Gilbert, vice president of legislative affairs for Public Citizen, said passage of the Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4) is a "critical step" in combating Republican voter suppression efforts that have proliferated in the six years since the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
"Numerous state legislatures have undertaken targeted and deliberate steps to limit or impede the right to vote for communities of color, students, the elderly, and people with disabilities," said Gilbert. "Americans who are eligible to vote but are denied that right due to fabricated or illegal barriers are being deprived of the full privilege of our democracy."